This Letter To The Justice Department Could Be Uber's Worst Nightmare http://www.businessinsider.com/letter-to-eric-holder-about-uber-2014-5/comments
en-usWed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 -0500Sun, 02 Aug 2015 19:23:34 -0400Megan Rose Dickeyhttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/53a88662eab8eacf1544b3c5RoccodinoMon, 23 Jun 2014 15:56:18 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53a88662eab8eacf1544b3c5
You don't. What you will want is an insurance carrier when the driver slams into another car and you find out that there is no insurance for you to pay your $25,000 in medical bills because you went through the windshield or the windshield went through you. More over you would probably want to know the reason that there is no insurance is because the driver was in 8 other at fault accidents prior to yours and that is why the driver does not drive for a regulated vehicle for hire. and so on and so on and so on. People should not be so narrow minded when addressing the vehicle for hire industry. We in the industry want nothing more than FAIR competition. Not renegade apps putting the riding public at risk which is exactly what Uber, Lyft and all others are doinghttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/539883cb69bedd827be95361Me TooWed, 11 Jun 2014 12:28:59 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539883cb69bedd827be95361
Driving a taxi is the most dangerous job in America. Drivers risk their lives everyday and work hard for the money they get.
They deserve the protection the laws and regulations afford them. Uber's disruptive technology is another part of the scam called the sharing economy where people rent out their time and possessions because real jobs no longer exist. Venture capital is supplying the money for the legal teams required by these companies to circumvent the law. Hats off to Vegas and New Orleans who refuse to play this game.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5387f2066bb3f7265dc3e61fTAXICOLOGISTThu, 29 May 2014 22:50:46 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5387f2066bb3f7265dc3e61f
I just came from Amsterdam where in the Red District I've got the idea: UBER XXX. No prostitution ! LOVE SHARING for donations only. No pimps ! Direct contact with customers using peer to peer smart phone app. UBER XXX will take only 20% cut instead of usual 50%. Both customers and prostitutes will be objectively rated. Who the f... needs law enforcers regulators and pay taxes/fees? And as far as service exchange: it's my place or your place or may be Airbnb ?
Equal opportunities for everybody: customers can become whores and whores can become customers. ADAs wellcome, all kind of sexual preferences. Oh What a Country !!!http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5386810feab8ea9f0c4975ffAlfie BatrossWed, 28 May 2014 20:36:31 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5386810feab8ea9f0c4975ff
1, 2, 4 and 5 sure appear, at a glance, to be problems, and it's important to note that they are potentially problems not just from a legal standpoint, but from a practical/PR standpoint - it would be a big problem if consumers/users perceive UBER to be discriminatory against the handicapped/racially or have inadequate insurance. UBER does not need that bad PR, and the media could turn against UBER and focus heavily on those issues at any moment.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/538676446bb3f70738497600AgreeToDisagree Wed, 28 May 2014 19:50:28 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/538676446bb3f70738497600
As a San Francisco resident I can't explain how much UBER has helped with transportation in this city.
First of all, the Taxi drivers here are extremely rude! They refuse to take anything but cash, and drive like crazy people. Joe mentioned in his letter that Taxicab companies by law must go to any address requested, and that's total BS here in San Francisco. I can't tell you how many time friends of mine have been in the Marina (or other areas in the city), finally hailed down a cab to go to the Sunset and were told to get out of the cab bc "They don't go to the Sunset".
The second reason UBER is so much more amazing than taxi's is bc they're available 24/7 in any neighborhood. Before UBER there were times I needed to get home at 2/3am and would call the taxi company, after being on hold for 20 minutes my pick-up request was answered but then I would wait 30 minutes for a taxi that would never even show up. Now with Uber, if I need to get home NOW its no issue at all.
UBER may be breaking the laws, but it's definitely more efficient than the taxi companies. As long as UBER is around, I'll be a loyal customer.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/538675996bb3f72034497601Warner StanleyWed, 28 May 2014 19:47:37 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/538675996bb3f72034497601
Goodness. Someone needs to send Joe Jordan a copy of the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution. THIS domain and issue is NOT an issue for the Federal Government! This is essentially a state issue and a local government issue. However, it certainly is a clever instance of playing the "race card!" Send a letter alleging racial discrimination to an extremely race-conscious AG - and you can be almost assured he will take the bait!!! I have no doubt that crushing "Uber" will become a major priority for this corrupt administration. It plays well with the Union Vote - and it lets the Obama Administration continue to pole-vault over mouse-turds - - distract the polity from what the administration SHOULD be doing so they can hype doing things they have not constitutional reason for doing (because it is another level of government's responsibility). Consider - this administration utterly failed to do it's core function of being sure the Federal Laws were faithfully executed - it preferred to make speeches about "in-equality" rather than executing even minimal executive oversight of the preparation and roll-out of healthcare.gov. Totally shameful - and absolute dereliction of the core responsibilities of being an executive. I am a former career military officer - that kind of abject abandonment of core duties - by my books - merit immediate total censure and removal from any further executive responsibilities. It didn't and won't happen. But the polity of the US should not be deceived - this administration - and especially the President and his AG will use any diversion or spurious issue to avoid doing THEIR JOB! So, don't be deceived by this deeply cynical letter. This isn't a Federal Issue. Make the Obama Administration DO ITS JOB and not deceive the polity by going after a side issue like this. Make the Obama Administration do its sworn duty to do faithfully execute the Federal Laws - make it do the right thing about changing the public laws - not issue unlawful executive decrees that change the written text of the public laws.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53866fbd6bb3f70e1a49760aUnhappy CitizenWed, 28 May 2014 19:22:37 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53866fbd6bb3f70e1a49760a
the problem is that the laws exist. they should only require either the company or the driver to be insured for any damages they might causehttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/53866a5c6bb3f7e90d4975ffstacey strongWed, 28 May 2014 18:59:40 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53866a5c6bb3f7e90d4975ff
Go away uber...http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5386613decad04c9553f8700SigmundWed, 28 May 2014 18:20:45 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5386613decad04c9553f8700
If a service is regulated and providers have a higher cost to comply ("disabled access"), yes, you either require this from everyone or drop all regulation. It will (not) be interesting to see every unemployed person giving 2 dollar rides in NY (everyone can make an app; let's call it "Bangalore Now")
On a sidenote: "UBER claims to have ten billion dollars in Venture capital" -- no, it doesn't. You have no idea of what is valuation and what is VC. Get you facts straight or everything else you say will look fishy.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53865fa1ecad04b74a3f870fHangtime79Wed, 28 May 2014 18:13:53 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53865fa1ecad04b74a3f870f
He makes some good points but some I disagree with, the only place I will discuss is those complaints he has - the questions around what Justice is doing, etc. are superfluous and ultimately weaken his arguments:
1. ADA Violations - Agree. Goes to classification and hairy. In this case, I actually agree with the argument that UBER is likely violating the spirit of ADA.
2. Undesirable neighborhoods - Maybe. Can an on-call service refuse to serve a neighborhood. UBER is not a street hail so I think this is kinda of up-in-the-air.
3. Secret Ratings - Disagree. Ratings mean nothing. Cabs do this routinely by bypassing different customers. I would say this one is a non-starter.
4. Crossing State Lines - Maybe. Local regulators job, not for Justice to worry. Ultimately, the individuals who are doing so should be fined or jailed (if permitted by law) whether UBER could / should reimburse is ultimately a question.
5. Independent Contracting vs Employees - Completely agree with this one. UBER dictates to a point of how the job should run that really drivers are employees NOT contractors. Contractors have the ability to carry-out their job in a way so long as they get to end result. UBER drivers jobs are dictated in such a way that in actuality employees and should be afforded those protections.
6. Distracted Driving - Disagree. Communities have laws against this and is not a reason for Justice to get involved. You could make the same argument against GPS technology in general.
7. Commercial Insurance - Completely agree. Commercial enterprise that should be carrying correct insurance at all times.
8. RICO - Disagree. RICO is a prosecutor's tactic not a reason to go after UBER.
9. Stock Sham - Disagree. Confusing valuation with funding. I can almost guarantee the company is following the letter of the law on this one given its predisposition to go public one day.
10. Crossing international borders - Disagree. That's Canadian provinces jurisdiction not that of Justice and again its not a criminal offense its a civil one.
11. Flaunting the Law - Agree. UBER's MO is to ignore law, but unless a jurisdiction wants to go after them then they can essence continue to do so. Like they say unless someone is going to stop us then we will continue
So final score
Agree on 4
Maybe on 2
Disagree on 5
Most of where I see UBER having issues are those around how they classify their drivers. I view this as the biggest threat to UBER. If a ruling came down on that then it could immediately impact UBER, its valuation, and its livelihood going forward.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53865a01ecad04c13b3f86fdEquilibriumWed, 28 May 2014 17:49:53 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53865a01ecad04c13b3f86fd
Also: BI can you stop with the sensationalist headlines?http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5386597ceab8ea8079497600EquilibriumWed, 28 May 2014 17:47:40 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5386597ceab8ea8079497600
Through years of lobbying the taxicab industry has successfully built many barriers to entry such that they can stop meeting the market's needs and continue to operate. UBER's commercial success confirms that. Any incremental regulation/deregulation needs to restore the balance such that drivers for hire are meeting the demand of their customers.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/538655f9eab8ea046b633b34sam79Wed, 28 May 2014 17:32:41 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/538655f9eab8ea046b633b34
Censoring ride-sharing fraud exposing posts? So much for freedom of speech I see.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/538655cbeab8ea446e633b31sam79Wed, 28 May 2014 17:31:55 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/538655cbeab8ea446e633b31
And Mr. Joe. I. Jordan is absolutely correct of course... Ride-sharing is a fraudulent transportation business model
that is based on plundering of local municipal coffers and destruction of small transportation businesses all across the
states through unfair and unjust competition.
The facts are self-evident. And the crony offshore-based oligarchs supporting this ride-sharing fraud need to be exposed.
Pink slime has better ingredients than roster of investors invested in ride-sharing private corporations.
Technology is not a factor in this discussion. There are nowadays hundreds of GPS-enabled apps that offer same,
and better, level of technology for hailing a ride. Many of these apps operate legally and support local businesses.
So technology is not an excuse to break laws, ignore court orders and spit onto the face of regulations and most basic
business ethics.
The only suggestion I would like to add here is that with "pirates", "gypsies" and other unethical operators such as illegal
and fraudulent ride-sharing taxicabs, letters won't suffice. We need to collectively file lawsuits against these law-breakers
all across the states. The violators shall face lawsuit after lawsuit. Not because I'm against competition - but because
I am against double-standards where small transportation businesses are treated by other set of standards and
multi-billion dollar ride-sharing "startups" are treated by far more lax ones. Because when I take a ride - I would like
to know that my fair stays local and not transferred offshore where majority of ride-sharing private corporations have
been incorporated. Because tax evasion, blatant money laundering and refusal to pay for business permits under the false claim
of "not being in a transportation industry" - a claim that ride-sharing corporations actually used in US courts - is absurd.
Absurd, and detrimental to our local economies, our local municipal revenues and thousands on top of thousands of our small
transportation businesses who operate legally and ethically every single day all across this country.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/538655936bb3f7ff44a4510esam79Wed, 28 May 2014 17:30:59 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/538655936bb3f7ff44a4510e
So tax-evasion is innovation? Money-laundering offshore is innovation? Refusal to pay for business
permits because ride-sharing "is not in a transportation business'" is innovation? his is absurd.
You fraudsters know it well. I see it on your faces every time you pickup passengers on street of my town.
It's the face of the thief who knows he is committing a crime.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/538654bcecad049c2c964eddARTXWed, 28 May 2014 17:27:24 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/538654bcecad049c2c964edd
Uber is basically a cab managing company, you call them, someone comes pick you up, take you somewhere else and they charge you a fee. Sure the interaction with Uber is different (better or worst whatever you think) than other cab companies, and perhaps their operators (drives) offer you a better service; but at the end they're just a cab company, so, Why shouldn't they follow simple safety regulations???http://www.businessinsider.com/c/538654b3ecad040b22964ee4sam79Wed, 28 May 2014 17:27:15 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/538654b3ecad040b22964ee4
And Mr. Joe. I. Jordan is absolutely correct of course... Ride-sharing is a fraudulent transportation business model
that is based on plundering of local municipal coffers and destruction of small transportation businesses all across the
states through unfair and unjust competition.
The facts are self-evident. And the crony offshore-based oligarchs supporting this ride-sharing fraud need to be exposed.
Pink slime has better ingredients than roster of investors invested in ride-sharing private corporations.
Technology is not a factor in this discussion. There are nowadays hundreds of GPS-enabled apps that offer same,
and better, level of technology for hailing a ride. Many of these apps operate legally and support local businesses.
So technology is not an excuse to break laws, ignore court orders and spit onto the face of regulations and most basic
business ethics.
The only suggestion I would like to add here is that with "pirates", "gypsies" and other unethical operators such as illegal
and fraudulent ride-sharing taxicabs, letters won't suffice. We need to collectively file lawsuits against these law-breakers
all across the states. The violators shall face lawsuit after lawsuit. Not because I'm against competition - but because
I am against double-standards where small transportation businesses are treated by other set of standards and
multi-billion dollar ride-sharing "startups" are treated by far more lax ones. Because when I take a ride - I would like
to know that my fair stays local and not transferred offshore where majority of ride-sharing private corporations have
been incorporated. Because tax evasion, blatant money laundering and refusal to pay for business permits under the false claim
of "not being in a transportation industry" - a claim that ride-sharing corporations actually used in US courts - is absurd.
Absurd, and detrimental to our local economies, our local municipal revenues and thousands on top of thousands of our small
transportation businesses who operate legally and ethically every single day all across this country.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53865220ecad046922964edfFrankFurterWed, 28 May 2014 17:16:16 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53865220ecad046922964edf
The problem is two fold.
1) The law is in fact too onerus in a lot of industries. The red tape in the cab industry is ridiculous.
2) Until that changes, why should Uber get a pass on doing something any regular cab company would be cited for?
Also, they aren't "innovating" anything. They're just ignoring cab laws and regulations which allows them to do things like pull in drivers from other areas if a location is extra busy. This isn't "innovative". Neither is ordering one from an app.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/538651e6ecad046e22964ee0nickfooWed, 28 May 2014 17:15:18 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/538651e6ecad046e22964ee0
LOL, good luck hailing a cab in East New York, Brownsville, or Hunter's Point...
Also, how many studies have been done showing that yellow cabbies aggressively discriminate against people of color?http://www.businessinsider.com/c/538651a56bb3f7f72ea45114Agree with YOU,,, and most of this articleWed, 28 May 2014 17:14:13 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/538651a56bb3f7f72ea45114
only "suggesting" a level playing field
while I WAS a union cabbie in silly CA in the mid sixties,, and I can testify not many of my brothers did in fact serve the 'minority' market, etc... we all DID try to answer every call, and we did follow each and every rule from the feds, the state, and the 'local' jurisdictions in which we operated
simple enough,,, follow the rules that should and do apply to every such servicehttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/538650fa6bb3f7ef2ea4511cFrankFurterWed, 28 May 2014 17:11:22 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/538650fa6bb3f7ef2ea4511c
What do users have to do with my point? They don't inherently indicate innovation or not one way or the other. And their logistical "innovations" are largely just a product of ignoring licensing and permitting, just as I previously mentioned. Anyone can avoid paying taxes and license fees and ignore industry rules. It's not 'innovative'. I'll keep making logical arguments why you play in the sandbox. You must be a Redditor.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53864ba7ecad04dc7e4e37dePeter SmithWed, 28 May 2014 16:48:39 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53864ba7ecad04dc7e4e37de
Stop shouting at it's other. It's not a peeing match. Uber is great for innovation, but they are breaking the law. The real problem is that the law is broken and needs to be fixed to allow companies like Uber to innovate. Same applies to the dumb franchise laws that are keeping Tesla out of certain states.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5386493a69beddd73d4e37dfYou foolWed, 28 May 2014 16:38:18 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5386493a69beddd73d4e37df
Logistical innovations aren't innovations? Uber has plenty of users that demonstrate how dumb you are. Enjoy living in your box. We'll keep moving forward while you sit still and complain. You must be old.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5386490aecad044a784e37dcJohn WarrenWed, 28 May 2014 16:37:30 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5386490aecad044a784e37dc
You have a big company screens it's drivers and customers to make sure everyone behaves responsibly. I don't see why government should interfere with a private company doing better than the TLC at policing its drivers and customers.
any laws which prevent über from doing what it is doing are bad laws and they are unconstitutional. We have a responsibility to not put up with this nonsense and just say no to the government sticking its business where it doesn't belong.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/538647aa6bb3f793124e37ddJohn WarrenWed, 28 May 2014 16:31:38 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/538647aa6bb3f793124e37dd
More ridiculous bs. You have a great company that provides great service and haters are going after it. Enough with this forced integration and services nonsense. If people don't want to serve any group of people for whatever reason they should be free to. How about those people who aren't served clean up their behavior and communities so people wouldn't fear for their lives picking them up or better yet create their own taxi system. I
Being disabled is also no excuse to rain on other people's parades. We should try to accommodate them but some times it gets to a point where it disrupts every one else. We shouldn't have to bow down to them. We are important too.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/538645d56bb3f7fd0f4e37decamdawggyWed, 28 May 2014 16:23:49 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/538645d56bb3f7fd0f4e37de
So the Justice Department is supposed to command the NSA to divert resources to spying on cars, because "a prominent" (unnamed) "regulator" repeated an unverifiable comment made by a fourth party during a trip that can't be verified. As a matter of fact, he offered absolutely no concrete evidence of anything. He made claims, offered hearsay, and then tried to "call out" the AG, to compel action because he doesn't feel that the AG will take action. And then, he will blame the AG for not acting?
What if someone said that people using his limo service were dealing keys of coke, and running prostitution companies from the back seats, and smuggling people and drugs from Mexico using his cars? What do you think his first response would be? Maybe he would say, "prove it"? And yet his entire letter is doing just that.
I just have to wonder if this guy knows he sounds that insane? I've never used Uber, or even looked at the ap, so I've got no dog in this fight, but this guy's letter is insane, and the fact that the press is presenting it as a real threat is just as insane. The media should know more than almost any other industry that a story, and sources, must be credible. Insane.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5386443a69bedd60294e37e0krypticWed, 28 May 2014 16:16:58 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5386443a69bedd60294e37e0
Irrelevant point.
Companies are supposed to obey the law and a breaking the law across state lines moves the issue from State to Federal jurisdiction.
There's no reason Uber's drivers and cars can't meet state and local regulations. None whatsoever.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/538642a6ecad04af644e37ddFrankFurterWed, 28 May 2014 16:10:14 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/538642a6ecad04af644e37dd
Is he asking them to smother the competition or simply to apply the same rules they adhere to, given that they are the exact same business? I'm all for getting rid of layers of bureaucracy and fees and permits for every little thing, but until then I'm also for equal application of the law. Not sure what argument there is that Uber should get a pass on the rules that apply to cab companies.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5386421b69bedd65284e37dcFrankFurterWed, 28 May 2014 16:07:55 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5386421b69bedd65284e37dc
What innovation? This is just a cab company that opts not to follow any existing regulations, fees, and taxes that apply to cab companies.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/538641ab6bb3f7dc064e37ddFrankFurterWed, 28 May 2014 16:06:03 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/538641ab6bb3f7dc064e37dd
Why are these companies even seen as big time innovators? You can pretty much mimic any existing business, skip all the permitting and licensing and regulations and cranks out a pretty good profit. You could also stop paying taxes and make even more profit! Innovative! Game changer!!
Now there's merit in the discussion that we have too much bureaucracy invading every facet of starting up and maintaining a business, but that isn't a carte blanche excuse to unilaterally ignore it and do whatever the hell you want.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5386403aeab8eadf211e8978eeterrificWed, 28 May 2014 15:59:54 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5386403aeab8eadf211e8978
Let's stop innovation. Let's create jobs by banning combines and tractors. We solve our unemployment problems. Put people out in the fields with scythes and rakes.
Wait until Googles "driverless" cars hit...then what do the taxi drivers do?? In fact, most people won't own a car, because you'll be able to summon a driverless car at will. And what will truck drivers do?? I know, there'll be a regulation that someone must be sitting in the cab in case something goes wrong. Perfect job...you can watch the country, read, play on your ipad...http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53863f33eab8ea201b1e8989VeritasWed, 28 May 2014 15:55:31 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53863f33eab8ea201b1e8989
Why do I need the federal government to help me decide what car I get a ride from?http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53863cf9ecad040a524e37deTheodoreBallgamePhDWed, 28 May 2014 15:46:01 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53863cf9ecad040a524e37de
Has any company ever had $10B of VC funding?http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53863bccecad04a3514e37demrknowitallWed, 28 May 2014 15:41:00 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53863bccecad04a3514e37de
One big lawsuit and they are done. Joe Jordan is right. If a passenger is injured and it is determined that the Uber car was being operated commercially without the proper commercial insurance and was found at fault, the insurance company will deny the claim. The driver and Uber Inc will be liable. Adios, Uber.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5386391a6bb3f70d654e37deJabillyWed, 28 May 2014 15:29:30 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5386391a6bb3f70d654e37de
I had too stop reading after this part "So even if this letter to Holder produces no response, it still underlines to biggest weakness in Uber's business model..."http://www.businessinsider.com/c/538635736bb3f76a5d4e37dfThis guyWed, 28 May 2014 15:13:55 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/538635736bb3f76a5d4e37df
<a href="http://www.limoinsider.net/photo_gallery" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" >http://www.limoinsider.net/photo_gallery</a>
Yeah, everything looks on the up and up with yachtman joe....http://www.businessinsider.com/c/538633b469beddef6f4e37dcBaltimoreBoyWed, 28 May 2014 15:06:28 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/538633b469beddef6f4e37dc
To put this in plain language:
Dear Mr. Holder,
I am writing to you today because my scummy industry is being usurped by a better, more consumer friendly alternative.
I'm going to need you to smother these new competitors in red tape and regulation in order to stymie their revenue and growth.
I'm going to leave this blank check on your desk, let me know how much it takes to buy off your administration.
Best Regards,
Joe L. Jordan